Tuesday, 11 March 2014

Integrated Action Plan: An overarching development initiative

Photo Source: kracktivist

The Integrated Action Plan is entering
the fourth year of its existence this year. It is a plan which has caused a lot
of infighting; however, it was seen as a hopeful start to a new strategy to
counter Left Wing Extremism in the country. Has it achieved what it set out to?
What are the points of divergence? Where lies the problem and what can be the
solutions to make it a more judicious and effective plan by the Central
government? These are some questions that this article seeks to answer.

Since it was first presented in 2010, the IAP
has been extended to 88 districts. The initial 33 districts were part of the 83
Left Wing Extremism (LWE) affected districts identified under the Security
Related Expenditure (SRE) by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The LWE
districts coming under the IAP were those wherein more than 20 per cent of the
total number police stations in the district saw incidents of naxal violence.

To begin with, IAP for 60 identified tribal
and backward districts was implemented with a block grant of Rs.25 crore and
Rs.30 crore per district during 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, for which the
funds were to be placed at the disposal of the Committee headed by the District
Collector (DC) assisted by the Superintendent of Police (SP) of the district
and the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO).

Its basic fallacy is that it follows a
top-down approach, which, in a democratic set-up is rather unsustainable. The
voice of the people for which the IAP is intended is not heard while the onus
of making the policy rests with the bureaucracy. Neither the people at ground
level, nor their representatives, are a part of the consultations on the implementation
of policies under the plan. Therefore,
the vision with which the policy was initiated is more or less defeated.

This allows for pilferages in the system
which, as was observed during a field trip to some of the states with districts
falling under the IAP, increases the gap between allocation of funds and
implementation thereof. Moreover, because the IAP was primarily initiated to
address the governance deficit in LWE states, putting other districts in states
like Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, where the problem is not acute, takes
away from the purpose of the plan. A better way of guaranteeing that the most
needy districts get the benefit of this policy would be to establish a graded
system of aid ie: Grade A districts which need the most attention can be
granted more funds while Grade B districts which are relatively free from
violence can be granted a lesser amount of aid under this plan.

Another recommendation for addressing
the trust deficit that the government faces is allowing greater role for Gram
Sabha in consultations. As is the case now, the bureaucracy is seen as the
enemy by the locals in these areas. The Gram Sabha comprises each member of the
village and involving them in the decision making process would ensure a more
democratic system of aid dispensation.

For greater accountability, a proper
grievance redressal mechanism needs to be put in place. This can only happen
with greater transparency in the form of plan outlay and implementation record.
A model that can be replicated for this is how the transparency in the Right to
Information Act was followed in Rajasthan where the law and guidelines were put
up on the walls of the villages so that everyone can be made aware of their
rights.

Development can only happen when the
government’s agenda matches with that of the people. It is not difficult if the
right intent exists. All it needs is a more democratic process of decision
making and transparent means of accountable implementation.